Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EN BANC
DECISION
The order of the court a quo dated April 13, 1961 which requires
appellant to amend its complaint by including as parties plaintiffs
each and every one of the 600 members of the union to which they
belong and to state the individual amounts due each of them is
predicated on the following findings: chanroblespublishingcompany
Appellant disagreed with the above finding for it contends that the
basis of its complaint is not the individual contracts of employment
which its members had entered into with the company but the
collective bargaining agreement that was concluded between the
union and the company insofar as their participation in the Labor
Day parade held on May 1, 1960 is concerned wherein it was agreed
that those members who should so participate would be paid their
daily basic wage. And this is so because, it contends, before the
conclusion of said collective bargaining agreement the members of
the union did not enjoy the benefit of the provision of the Labor Day
parade contained therein and, in fact, if not because of that
agreement they would not now be entitled to such basic daily wage
even if they had participated in such Labor Day parade.
On the other hand, the company is of the view that since the provision
regarding payment is of the basic daily wage to the members of the
union contained in the collective bargaining agreement runs to the
benefit of the members concerned, not to the union, said provision
confers a right which is unique and personal to the employees with
the result that they are the ones who are the real parties in interest
with regard to the collection of their individual basic wages. And to
bolster up this contention, the company cites several cases decided in
the United States.
We are of the opinion that the complaint filed by the union comes
under the jurisdiction of the court a quo for the same is based upon
the collective bargaining agreement concluded between the union and
the company. Before the conclusion of said agreement, the members
of the union, and for that matter any employee of the company, did
not enjoy the benefit of payment of their basic daily wage even if they
should attend or participate in a Labor Day parade held on Labor
Day, since this right was only recognized when that agreement was
concluded. The basis of the right which is sought to be enforced is the
agreement itself and not the wages to be collected. The situation
would be different if the purpose of the action were merely to collect
wages that ordinarily accrue to members of the union because of work
or services rendered in connection with their employment where the
union to which the members belong would have no personality to sue
for said services in their behalf because in that case the real parties in
interest would be the laborers or employees themselves. Not so when
the wages accrue mainly on the strength of an agreement entered into
between the union and the company, as is the instant case. The action
then may be brought in the name of the union that has obliged itself
to secure those wages for its members. In this sense, the cases cited
by the company are inapplicable. chanroblespublishingcompany
WHEREFORE, the orders appealed from are set aside. The case is
remanded to the court a quo for further proceedings. No costs.